An unlikely coalition of Republicans, business executives, military officials, religious leaders and the former Michigan Speaker of the House who initially pushed for a ban on gay marriage has filed briefs in federal court supporting the March 21 ruling that briefly struck down Michigan’s restrictions on same-sex couples’ right to marry… “As conservatives, moderates and libertarians we embrace the individual freedoms protected by our Constitution,” said Rick Johnson, the former GOP speaker who paved the way for the gay marriage issue to make its way to the 2004 statewide ballot. “We embrace Ronald Reagan’s belief that the Republican Party must be a ‘big tent.’ We believe in the importance of limited government, individual freedom and stable families. We believe that these values are advanced by recognizing civil marriage rights for same-sex couples.”

1 Comments so far ↓

On 18 June 2014, the Parliament one of the world’s most peaceful, most scenic, and richest countries, by a vote of 56 to 4, with no abstentions, legalized same-gender civil marriage.

In this country, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of State, the Minister of Communications and Media, the Minister of Religions, the Minister of the Economy and Foreign Trade, the Minister for the Middle Classes and for Tourism, the Minister of Defense, and the heads of two of the three parties making up the governing coalition are openly gay; the Prime Minister lives openly with his partner in the Prime Minister’s official residence; and the two attend official and other public functions as a couple.

A special court in this country examines all bills to determine whether they are constitutional BEFORE the Chamber of Deputies is allowed to vote on them and if it rules that a bill or a part thereof violates the constitution, the Chamber may not approve it (either the bill must be withdrawn or the offending part must be rewritten).

The court ruled that the bill providing for the legalization of same-gender civil marriage was unacceptable.

What’s that you’re thinking? That it so ruled because it believed that same-gender couples do not have a human right, a civil right, or a constitutional right to civil marriage equal in all respects to different-gender civil marriage? Nothing of the sort.

The court scrupulously compared what benefits, entitlements, privileges, protections, and rights current law grants different-gender married couples and what benefits, entitlements, privileges, protections, and rights the bill would grant same-gender married couples and found that current law grants one right which the bill would not – and that one difference was enough for the eagle-eyed court to see the bill as discriminatory. It therefore ruled that either the missing right be added or the bill be scrapped. The government added the missing right and submitted the revised version to the court, which approved it.

For a 6700-word report on events in this country and how to see and hear Parliament’s meeting today (you can also access it anytime later), see Report 5 in “Equal Human Rights and Civil Rights for All Persons, No Matter Their Gender, No Matter Their Sexual Orientation: A Newsletter” (www.humciv.com).